Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

[Kanastrous]

There are no illegal political parties in the USA. If you wish to identify as a Nazi, and belong to a Neo-Nazi political party, there are no legal obstacles to your doing so.

Now, if you belong to a group which is considered a criminal enterprise, that's a different matter. But simply being a Neo-Nazi party is not what gets groups listed, as criminal.

[Lonestar]

Hmmm... Let's try to put ourselves in Israel's shoes. What would we do if we were in such a situation?


Let's say that 60 years after the USA became independent, a pro-British party started to form... That would not have gone over well.

I'm not sure that you know your US History.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Hmmm... Let's try to put ourselves in Israel's shoes. What would we do if we were in such a situation?

We wouldn't ban them.

Did you think this was a difficult question?

On the next issue my knowledge is a bit shaky, but... isn't it illegal to be part of he Nazi or Communist party in the US?

No, under the US Constitution it is not possible to ban any political party. There are presently multiple Nazi Parties in the USA, all of which are legal, as is the Communist Party USA. Whereas it is impossible to directly ban a political party de jure they could be banned de facto if they were proven to be a criminal organization prosecutable under the RICO Act. This would be pretty difficult but not totally inconceivable.

Would you expect a country to allow people they practically view as enemies, or so closely tied to their enemies, form a political bloc?

No, and in fact the Israeli Constitution specifically allows such parties to be banned, but of course it's incumbent on the CEC to prove that these parties actually were opposed to the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish Democratic State. Very basic research into United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad tells me that neither of them have that in their platform (both support a two-state solution), and apparently the CEC essentially admitted that the ban was not lawful and the Supreme Court would overrule them.

[Coyote]

However, being a member of "any group which seeks to violently overthrow or replace the US government" does make life very difficult for you if you should ever have a tangle with the law.

I think it is legal to be a member of the Nazis so long as you limit yourself to saying things like "I think we should have a National Socialists government in the US, and would vote to that ends". OTOH, it is not legal to say "We should have a Nazi government, and I will fight (kill, etc) to that ends".

There's a wierd border between being willing to support a revolution if one comes along, and actively trying to make it happen, or something like that.

[Garlak]

@Lonestar. Wasn't aware of that.


@ Pablo Sanchez. To be honest, I do think it is a difficult question. Firstly, I've watched Bush's antics with a bit of depression and horrified fascination. I don't know everything but what I've soaked up leaves me cynically thinking if there are ways to screw up that he won't do.

Guess I'll withdraw now and wait to see what comes of this.

[Lonestar]

@Lonestar. Wasn't aware of that.

Made a casual "What-if" while showing a breathtaking ignorance on the immediate post-Revolutionary US? Shocking.

[Illuminatus Primus]

However, being a member of "any group which seeks to violently overthrow or replace the US government" does make life very difficult for you if you should ever have a tangle with the law.

I think it is legal to be a member of the Nazis so long as you limit yourself to saying things like "I think we should have a National Socialists government in the US, and would vote to that ends". OTOH, it is not legal to say "We should have a Nazi government, and I will fight (kill, etc) to that ends".

There's a wierd border between being willing to support a revolution if one comes along, and actively trying to make it happen, or something like that.

This is not what the Israeli law says. It says even to have a party which even by implication supports the negation of the State of Israel not even existentially, but even merely as a particularly Jewish state, is unlawful. That's not liberal democracy.

[hongi]

The two Arab parties would be the first parties to be banned since Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach party in the 1980s, which advocated expelling Arabs from Israel.

Exactly. Criticise Israel all you want for being undemocratic for this ban, which I think is a legitimate response, but at least they're consistent about it. They banned Kahane's party as well, so it's a precedent. Were people challenging that decision?

[bobalot]

However, being a member of "any group which seeks to violently overthrow or replace the US government" does make life very difficult for you if you should ever have a tangle with the law.

I think it is legal to be a member of the Nazis so long as you limit yourself to saying things like "I think we should have a National Socialists government in the US, and would vote to that ends". OTOH, it is not legal to say "We should have a Nazi government, and I will fight (kill, etc) to that ends".

There's a wierd border between being willing to support a revolution if one comes along, and actively trying to make it happen, or something like that.

This is not what the Israeli law says. It says even to have a party which even by implication supports the negation of the State of Israel not even existentially, but even merely as a particularly Jewish state, is unlawful. That's not liberal democracy.

Any country that claims it is a nation for a particular religion (be it Judaism, Islam, etc), cannot be called a liberal democracy. By its very nature it has to act to preserve the Jewish, Islamic, or [Insert religion here] nature of the state.

[Pelranius]

The two Arab parties would be the first parties to be banned since Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach party in the 1980s, which advocated expelling Arabs from Israel.

Exactly. Criticise Israel all you want for being undemocratic for this ban, which I think is a legitimate response, but at least they're consistent about it. They banned Kahane's party as well, so it's a precedent. Were people challenging that decision?

They've allowed that Lieberman (Avigdor that is) clown and his nutcase run around doing whatever they like, and those peopl are much harder to Arabs living in Israel than the Arab parties are about Zionism.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Exactly. Criticise Israel all you want for being undemocratic for this ban, which I think is a legitimate response, but at least they're consistent about it. They banned Kahane's party as well, so it's a precedent. Were people challenging that decision?

This argument only works if you show that United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad support policies that are similar to those that Kahane supported. By which I mean to say that your argument is spurious.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Illiberal and antidemocratic actions are defensible if consistent now? I suppose because the Nazis banned ALL other parties, well, at least they were being fair.

[hongi]

Criticise Israel all you want for being undemocratic for this ban, which I think is a legitimate response,

I meant the criticism was a legitimate response, not the ban. Sorry for the confusion. I do think it is undemocratic to ban political parties, and in fact more than a little ironic because according to the same law cited for the banning:

(1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

...the Central Elections Committee is doing much to negate the democratic nature of the state themselves.

This argument only works if you show that United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad support policies that are similar to those that Kahane supported. By which I mean to say that your argument is spurious.

Hang on, UAL-Taal and Balad was banned for allegedly calling for attacks on Israel and refusing to recognise the state's right to existence. Kahn was banned for racism, they're two different things.

But I concede that I assumed the guilt of the two parties involved. The Bagatz will clear them or not.

[eyl]

I forgot to mention this earlier, but it should be pointed out that the Hadash party was not banned. While technically it's not an Arab party (it contains a few Jews, and usually has one Jewish MK), it's identified as one of them and almost invariably forms a "block" with the other two.

Also, since someone asked earlier why this was being done despite the fact that the Supreme Court will almost certainly strike it down (even if the allegations are proven correct, the penalties would affect the specific MKs involved rather than the parties a a whole), I suspect it's mainly done as a slap in the face to those parties, whose representatives tend to be annoying assholes (given who pushed for it, of course, the move was also enacted by a bunch of annoying assholes, but that's another matter).

[Spyder]

The Other Side of Israel

This book's an interesting read. It does sound like Israeli Arabs do face a hard time over there.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I suspect it's mainly done as a slap in the face to those parties, whose representatives tend to be annoying assholes

In what sense? I'm asking seriously. Information on Israeli politics is non-existent in the USA, because substantive debate on Israel issues is not allowed; all we've got for about seven years is "the role of the USA is to support Israel".

[eyl]

I suspect it's mainly done as a slap in the face to those parties, whose representatives tend to be annoying assholes

In what sense? I'm asking seriously. Information on Israeli politics is non-existent in the USA, because substantive debate on Israel issues is not allowed; all we've got for about seven years is "the role of the USA is to support Israel".

Well, as I mentioned above, they tend to be the first to cry racism (sometimes justifiably, I'll admit) but then turn right around with statements which seem deliberately calculated to inflame Jewish-Arab relationships.

An example which particularly stuck in my mind: there's a group of Jewish crazies called the Temple Mount Faithful. Every once in a while, they declare they're going to lay a cornerstone for the Third Temple on the Temple Mount; the police then forbids it, the Supreme Court upholds the ban, they usually threaten to go up there anyway, and they wind up carrying a ceremony in a parking lot outside the city. A few yeas ago, this process was gearing up again, and there were concerns of riots if they did go to the Mount. The Arab MKs*, rather than trying to calm things down, seemed to go out of their way to inflame matters - one of them (I think it was Dahamshe, but I'm not sure) said he'd go to the Mount himself on the day in question and made all sorts of colorful threats on what would happen if the Faithful went there (he managed to skirt the line into inciting violence), even though he knew at the time that their procfesion had been banned.

*Note that I'm using "Arab MKs" here as shorthand for "MKs of the Arab parties"; there are Arab MKs who do not belong to those parties, but rather to some of the more mainstream ones.

There was another example in one of my previous posts, regarding National Service.

Then you have things like Azmi Bishara (who fled the country a couple of years ago to avoid treason or espionage charges) going to Hafez Assad's funeral and praising Hizbullah.

[Kanastrous]

There is at least one archaeologist arguing - with what seems like some degree of evidence - that the second temple was actually located some distance from the site of the Haram al Sharif.

It would be nice if enough people believed him, that they could happily build their third bad-luck temple there, and remove a source of friction with local Muslims.

[eyl]

As expected

The High Court of Justice overturned Wednesday the Central Elections Committee's decision to disqualify the Arab parties, Balad and United Arab List-Ta'al from taking part in the next Knesset race.

The Central Elections Committee explained its decision by saying that since neither party recognized Israel as the Jewish homeland, they were not eligible to bid in the nearing general elections.

Twenty-six of the committee's members were in favor of barring Balad from the elections, while 21 supported the decision to ban United Arab List-Ta'al.

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, appealed the decision with the High Court of Justice, on behalf of both parties.

Wednesday's appeal was heard before a nine-judge panel, as required by law: The petition filed by United Arab List-Ta'al on its disqualification was granted unanimously, while Balad's appeal was granted by a majority of eight, with Justice Edmond Levy objecting

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who was asked to prepare a brief on the matter for the court, said Monday that he saw no grounds to prevent the Arab parties from taking part in the elections.

Mazuz further noted that the decision to disqualify the Arab parties was based on "flimsy evidence."

Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) welcomed the decision: "We have beaten fascism. This fight is over but the battle is not. Racism has become a trend in Israel… the court's decision has righted a wrong by Kadima and Labor."

Balad Chairman MK Jamal Zahalka reiterated the sentiment: "This decision is a blow to Lieberman and the fascist Right, as well as to Kadima, the Likud and Labor, which stood by the disqualification.

"Balad stands by its platform. The court's decision is a victory to the Arab public and to anyone who seeks democracy… we call on everyone to back the notion of 'a people's state' and a life of equality and no discrimination."